When $8 Trillion Isn't Enough

[Fred Jones]

When $8 Trillion Isn't Enough

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/14/AR2006031401693.html

THE GOVERNMENT, Treasury Secretary John W. Snow informed Congress last week, has now taken "all prudent and legal actions" to avoid bumping up against the debt ceiling. The limit, Mr. Snow told lawmakers, will need to be raised from its current level: $8,184,000,000,000. If you aren't used to deciphering that parade of zeros, let us translate for you: $8.184 trillion isn't enough. The administration is asking for an additional $781 billion.

The inevitable increase will be the fourth such hike in five years, for a total rise in the national credit limit of more than $3 trillion. During his time in office, President Bush has presided over a 46 percent increase in the federal debt, from about $5.6 trillion. By contrast, during President Bill Clinton's two terms, the debt grew from less than $4 trillion to $5.6 trillion, a 28 percent increase -- and during the last few years of his presidency, Mr. Clinton actually began to pay down the country's "real" debt, that is, debt held by the public, as opposed to the IOUs in Social Security and other government accounts.

Put another way, Mr. Bush has managed to rack up more new debt during his five years in office than the entire debt amassed by the United States through 1988. And there is more to come: The president's budget envisions the debt rising to $11.5 trillion by 2011. This means that an increasing share of an increasingly tight budget must be devoted simply to paying interest -- an estimated $220 billion this fiscal year alone. Remember: This is the president who entered office promising to pay off $2 trillion in debt held by the public over the next decade. Far from being paid down, the debt held by the public has grown, from $3.3 trillion in 2001 to $5 trillion this year.

In the end, of course, Congress will vote to raise the debt ceiling, as it must. Indeed, the House has already done so, quietly, under a rule designed to let members take that step without having any politically damaging attention called to it. The Senate is to take up the issue this week, most likely just before it leaves on its latest recess; there, too, the hope of the majority is to get this unpleasant business over with as quickly as possible. But Democrats have secured an agreement to vote on several amendments, including tying the debt increase to restoring pay-as-you-go requirements on new entitlement spending or tax cuts. This is mostly for purposes of political point-scoring -- the amendment's not likely to be approved -- but that doesn't take away from the importance of doing something to get the budget under control.

Because, as the debt ceiling approaches $9 trillion, it's time to pause and consider the unabashed recklessness of the Bush administration's fiscal policies and its unwillingness to alter its tax-cutting course to accommodate new budgetary realities. "Future generations shouldn't be forced to pay back money that we have borrowed," Mr. Bush said in March 2001. "We owe this kind of responsibility to our children and grandchildren." Where is that responsibility now?

No accountability and no responsiblity in this administration.

[endzone_dave]

The economy is doing great NOW. Why worry about the future and what the consequences of the debt are. That's for pansie liberals.

I have a job NOW and that's all that matters.

[Sarge]

Too bad a social democrat in sheeps clothing got elected in 04

And people call Bush conservative:doh:

[Burgold]

yup, Bush and the Republican majority Congress seem to really have pulled off a deception saying that they are fiscal conservatives. They do love tax cuts and no bid contracts to their buddies, outsourcing and deregulation though. That's kind of conservative, isn't it.

[Midnight Judges]

There is no such thing as conservatism anymore in the FED. The Democrats are now the relatively small Government party as evidenced by this article. All you fiscal conservatives need to switch parties because yours has been hijacked by huge intrusive federal Government guys like Bush, Cheney, Rove, Frist, Boehner, Delay, etc. I would call them neocons but they don't deserve the term "con" because there is nothing conservative about it.

[Midnight Judges]

Too bad a social democrat in sheeps clothing got elected in 04

And people call Bush conservative:doh:

It was pretty easy to see this coming you know. He's a freakin' oil man for crying out loud! He lies all the time and people continue to trust and get burned over and over.

[Fred Jones]

I will add that the Democrats are any better at spending and saving. However, all the tax cuts Bush has enacted are just plain wrong. We are letting the rich off the hook while making future generations pay the bill.

[twa]

We won't mention 9/11, two wars and a few major hurricanes having a effect on it ....the lousy bums Should have anticipated them

[Thiebear]

Except the the child tax thing.. I'm liking that one...

AND yes: President Paris Hilton and the Nicole Richie Congress are not living the simple life....

And TWA is right about a portion of it...

That missing 26 billion is rather large though..

[Guest Gichin13]

drunken sailors. They all spend like drunken sailors.

Sad part is it never seems to matter who is in office. The Dems being the "fiscally conservative" party is an utter joke too.

[Burgold]

Comparitively, they were though. Though the truth is probably closer to... it works best when one party holds the executive and the other the legislative.

Reagan-- Democratic Congress

Clinton-- Republican Congress

[The 12th Commandment]

I will add that the Democrats are any better at spending and saving. However, all the tax cuts Bush has enacted are just plain wrong. We are letting the rich off the hook while making future generations pay the bill.

But isn't Bush just pulling a Snyder? Oh, that's right....Nations don't have a cap.

[SkinsFanCU07]

Personally, I tend to vote for the better person, and i don't like to affiliate with a party because personally I think people who vote straight party affiliation are ignorant.

During Clinton's presidency there was actually a time where the amount of our National Debt was slowly being chewed off, YES FOLKS THE DEBT WAS GETTING SMALLER.

Now this assclown Bush gets in office, goes to war in Iraq because of "WMD" that don't even exist....it would of been one thing if he had said they had intensions of taking Hussein out of power because he was a threat to US Security, but the man lied; plain and simple and now looks like a clown in the process. The amount of money we are spending on the war on Iraq is absolutely insane, the man went over there to get some oil, and got himself stuck in a huge mess.

I just find it ironic that out of all the intelligence in the United States of America and the sheer size of our country, the person who is deamed appropriate to be the "main figure" for the United States of America is a president who barely got C's in college and can barely speak in public without fumbling over his own words.

[luckydevil]

They do love tax cuts and no bid contracts to their buddies, outsourcing and deregulation though

Deregulation? More like re-regulation. Regulation has gone up under Bush

[vinva]

Too bad a social democrat in sheeps clothing got elected in 04

And people call Bush conservative:doh:

You mean fiscal democrat right? Bush is far from a social liberal...

[mbraun2]

Corruption is a necessary evil in government, after all thats how work/compromise gets done. But as a Conservative, I am having a hard time supporting the republican party. At this point I am so fed up with the bull**** that I am now just anti-partisan politics.

That said, lets elect a democrat president and republican legislature in 08. That seems to be the best formula, the Dem prez will appease liberals but the conservative legislature is where the work actually gets done. Lets just suffer through the next 2 years of Bush's regime.

Bush trying to sell the ports to the UAE was the last straw. He is a joke. Don't piss on my head and tell me its raining. If you want to prevent terror then do it. But if you are going to use the war on terror to make your cronies rich... then dont be such a pompous ass hole.

Sorry, I'm venting.

[Fred Jones]

We won't mention 9/11, two wars and a few major hurricanes having a effect on it ....the lousy bums Should have anticipated them

Wow, never saw that coming. Tough times call for tough measures. Bush took the easy, whimpy, put it off to the future, give my friends more money then they need route.

[flashback]

Yeah, because the other 42 Presidents got off easy. There were no wars or hurricanes when they were President, right?

I'm the first to cry foul when someone launches an ad hominem attack, but you must be one stupid mother-****er, twa.

[DeanCollins]

Gee, where's all the rightwing hot air bags on this one :laugh:

TWA they left you on the side of the road on on this.

[Baculus]

I am sorry, but it is too easy and convenient to blame the current adminstration's reckless spending on 9-11, the War on Terrorism, and hurricane Katrina. Keep in mind that much of that spending isn't even figured into governmental spending, and that current debt may be, in fact, a great deal higher if we even factor in all of the above. And the above events were often more damaging to the public economy as opposed to federal spending.

Surprie, surprise - President Bush did not stick to his campain promises.

Should we be surprised, outraged, or should we merely shrug our shoulders and mumble to ourselves, "typical politicians"? Really, when do we ever hold our public officials accountable? Remember, the president is a PUBLIC official, albeit more important then most, but still, a public official.

..And along with all of the other public officials in Washington that grin and merrily go along with the spending.

How long can we deal with such fiscal ineptitude? How long will we hear the platitudes, about our budget being fine and dandy, until we reach a crossroads and our economy, and worse yet, the US dollar, suffers irreversible damage?

[twa]

Yeah, because the other 42 Presidents got off easy. There were no wars or hurricanes when they were President, right?

I'm the first to cry foul when someone launches an ad hominem attack, but you must be one stupid mother-****er, twa.

Judging from your comments I think it is plain who is :laugh:

I suppose you would rather have restricted spending and raised taxes and sent us into a recession?

The % of debt to the GNP is still reasonable,besides he learned from his old man's mistake and got re-elected. pendejo

[Sarge]

Personally, I tend to vote for the better person, and i don't like to affiliate with a party because personally I think people who vote straight party affiliation are ignorant.

During Clinton's presidency there was actually a time where the amount of our National Debt was slowly being chewed off, YES FOLKS THE DEBT WAS GETTING SMALLER.

Now this assclown Bush gets in office, goes to war in Iraq because of "WMD" that don't even exist....it would of been one thing if he had said they had intensions of taking Hussein out of power because he was a threat to US Security, but the man lied; plain and simple and now looks like a clown in the process. The amount of money we are spending on the war on Iraq is absolutely insane, the man went over there to get some oil, and got himself stuck in a huge mess.

I just find it ironic that out of all the intelligence in the United States of America and the sheer size of our country, the person who is deamed appropriate to be the "main figure" for the United States of America is a president who barely got C's in college and can barely speak in public without fumbling over his own words.

I think you are confusing the national debt with the budget deficit. The natioanl debt has been out of hand for a long, long time

[Sarge]

You mean fiscal democrat right? Bush is far from a social liberal...

Bush is almost more liberal than clinton was

[herrmag]

The so called budget is fictitional, and we all know it. The Repub's crucified Clinton early on about it, and now it's vice-versa. I have a solution....

Hire Dan Snyder and Vinny Cerrato. Problem solved.

[Guest Gichin13]

Comparitively, they were though. Though the truth is probably closer to... it works best when one party holds the executive and the other the legislative.

Reagan-- Democratic Congress

Clinton-- Republican Congress

I completely agree -- gridlock has its benefits.